Cricket, as a game, has evolved drastically over the decades. With time, newer formats have been introduced, rules have changed, and even the perception of the game has changed. Despite all these changes, a few factors have remained constant. These factors are the parameters on which the games are recorded, analyzed, and eventually decide the outcome of a cricket match, whether it is a limited-overs format or the longest form of cricket.
In the limited-overs format, especially in the One Day Internationals, a batter needs to maintain a good balance between their batting average and their strike rate. A higher average with a lower strike rate will slow down the team’s progression in an inning, and a very high strike rate with a very low average would mean that the batter has not been able to provide a prolonged impact.
Cricket is a rapidly evolving game and the ODI format, in particular, evolves not in decades but a couple of years. One of the turning points in the changing styles of play or approach towards the game is the cricket World Cup.
Different teams follow different brands or styles of cricket, and there is no fixed template that all teams follow or a style that guarantees success. But a general trend or a shift in trend is noticed once a World Cup is finished. Right after a World Cup, teams start building plans and strategies for the next edition of the World Cup, and this marks a shift in the style of play the teams adopt, the personnel they invest in, etc.
If in 2015, especially after the 2015 ICC Cricket World Cup, if someone had mentioned that by the end of the decade, England would set the benchmarks in how the ODIs should be approached and played, chances are they would be hungover from the ruins the England team left in Australia after one of the most disastrous World Cups that they endured in their not so rich ODI history.
To set their ODI performance after the World Cup in perspective, we will also analyze and compare the performances of India and Australia in two separate periods. Since India and Australia were the two most successful teams in that period, along with winning World Cups in that decade, it will give a fair idea of how England measured against their performances before and after the World Cup. Period 1 will include ODI matches after the 2011 World Cup till the end of the 2015 World Cup Final and period 2 includes ODI matches after the 2015 World Cup till the 2019 Final.
ODI games are often dictated by how the middle-order of a team performs and they are the ones who shoulder various responsibilities, ranging from stabilizing the batting in case of a top-order collapse, building on the platform laid out by the top-order and providing the final flourish to post or chase a formidable score. For this purpose, we will analyze the performances of middle-order batters (positions 4, 5 and 6) from the three teams.
Comparing Batting Average
India used 11 different players at number 4 position, 9 players at number 5 position and 11 players at number 6 position in Period 1, and the batting averages were 38.40, 39.04 and 45.60 for respective positions. In Period 2, India used 13 batters at the number 4 position, a significantly higher 17 batters at number 5 and 13 batters at number 6, and their respective batting average dropped to 36.08, 33.58 and 44.07.
In Period 1, Australia used 10 batters at number 4, 15 batters at number 5 and 16 batters at number 6 position. The batting average for respective positions were 41.20, 39.22 and 32.00. The batting average of Australia’s middle-order dropped in Period 2 as well. 11 players were tried out at number 4, averaging 34.26 runs per innings. The returns for numbers 5 and 6 were worse, with 12 batters averaging a modest 31.60 at number 5 and a large pool of 17 different batters returning only 30.19 runs per innings at number 6.
England, on the other hand, played 9 batters at number 4 position, 7 batters at number 5 and 10 at number 6 in Period 1, averaging 36.62, 31.77 and 27.45 runs per innings respectively. They used the least number of personnel in their middle-order with excellent returns in Period 2. 5 players at number 4 averaged 50.06, 7 batters at number 5 averaged 49.12 and an average of 39.47 from 8 batters at the number 6 position.
Comparing Strike Rate
Indian batters struck at 83.91, 92.42, and 90.59 for batting positions 4, 5 and 6 respectively in Period 1. There wasn’t a significant difference in their strike rate in Period 2 as numbers 4, 5 and 6 batters scored 84.98, 87.50 and 95.42 runs per 100 balls for their respective positions.
Australian middle-order scored at a similar rate as compared to India in both periods. In Period 1, their number 4 batters scored at 84.64, number 5 at 91.95 and number 6 at 93.38. The returns in Period 2 improved marginally, as the respective strike rate for batters at numbers 4, 5 and 6 were 87.88, 94.45 and 97.09.
England just flicked a switch post their 2015 World Cup debacle. The strike rate of their numbers 4, 5 and 6 were 80.51, 86.25 and 89.67 respectively in Period 1, which were almost on par with India and Australia. In period 2, England unleashed an aggressive brand of cricket with their number 4 batters striking at 101.02, number 5 at 99.23 and number 6 at a whopping 110.92.
These numbers show that the idea of “higher strike rate results in lower average” is highly debatable as England’s middle-order not only averaged more runs per wicket but also scored those runs at a far superior rate. When the difference between the scoring rates of India and Australia in Period 1 and 2 is negligible, England scored an astounding 18.18 runs more per 100 balls faced in Period 2 as compared to Period 1.
Backing the players
One of the key reasons behind this drastic improvement behind England’s ‘coming of age’ approach towards scoring runs in One Day Internationals is their backing of players.
As compared to India and Australia, England used half the number of personnel for their middle-order. The idea of not changing personnel and giving them extended runs usually breeds an extra bit of confidence in the players and gives them the ability and security to express themselves freely. It also showcases that the side with a more settled squad with a core group of players tends to perform better and produces greater results than an unsettled team. This is also a result of well-defined goals and objectives for the players from the team management.
As they say, “After hitting rock bottom, the only way is up!”. England hit their rock bottom in 2015 and realized that to improve its One Day International cricket, a drastic change is essential. The change that England brought was less on the personnel front but more on the mindset of their players and setting up a fearless attitude of attacking right from the first ball.
This relentless mindset of not letting the fear of failure creep in, and continuing to attack from ball number 1 to ball number 300 has provided England the highest of highs in One Day Internationals. Their approach has made the England team the best ODI team in the world post the 2015 World Cup, a fact that is backed by their Win/Loss ratio in Period 2.
Australia had a W/L ratio of 1.896 – the best in Period 1 – with India being a close second at 1.828. England’s W/L ratio was a modest 1.000, meaning they won and lost an equal number of games in Period 1. Australia’s W/L ratio decreased in Period 2 – a mere 1.128. Although India’s ratio of 2.172 was a significant improvement, they were still the second-best team in Period 2 as England more than doubled their ratio from Period 1 in Period 2 with a whopping figure of 2.500.
England’s success was not just restricted to winning bilateral matches between the two World Cups. Their sustained brand of attacking cricket was also vindicated by them being crowned with their first-ever 50 over Cricket World Cup in 2019, making them the gold standard in the One Day International format of this glorious game.